Are poor classes the cause of a glut of PrCs?

[Endarire]

Sure, Prestige Classes introduced in 3.0 were called "optional."  They seemed to be a way to specialize your character by replacing levels of Basic Class X with levels of Seemingly Spiffier Prestige Class Y.

And had these PrCs mostly been Tier +0 and few in number, I would be more likely to agree.

I understand WotC is a business out to make a profit.  They also didn't understand the scope of their own game.  And, PrCs provide obvious specialization without remaking the base classes.

Still, profit motives aside, the glut of PrCs seem to stem from base classes with pretty boring mechanics and levels where the "class features" entry is empty.  In all of 3.5, consider how many PrCs there are intended for Druids.  Consider how many of them are worth using.  Now, consider how many PrCs were meant for Wizards and how many of them we keep hearing about.

I posit then that the designers started waking up to their design flaws.  Being an Illusionist was meant to mean you were a Wizard specialized in Illusion.  In core, there were no great distinctions between being an Illusionist and being a Transmuter.  (Extra spell slots and the forced acquisition of your free Wizard spells by level were the only notable differences.)  However, a Transmuter/War Weaver feels a lot different than an Illusionist/Shadowcraft Mage.  It isn't just "I focus on casting different spells!"  It's "I have synergizing class features that greatly distinguish you from me!"

Tome of Battle base classes were a great step forward in this direction.  Gish classes aside, if given the choice, I'm more likely to take a martial adept base class than a ToB PrC.  Why?  The maneuvers and stances can greatly distinguish Warblade A from Warblade B, and both Warblades have some spiffy class features.  (Not enough for me, but at least a good start.)

So, whatchya think on this situation?

[archangel.arcanis]

Lack of features wasn't the cause of the problem, though it didn't help any. It was the fact that you could trade virtually nothing for more power. Clerics are the most extreme case, just look at what they get after level 1, and then enter a PrC with full casting and anything else. It was an improvement because you gained power for free.

Lets take a less extreme case like the Fighter. Pick a PrC that gives anything useful and it will likely be better than the 2-5 feats you could have taken instead. Monks get stuff every level and I have yet to see one that didn't have to take a PrC to keep up with the group.

So the problem with PrCs is free/cheap power. The base classes could have all the features they wanted, but if you could easily enter a PrC that gave you more power then why they hell would you stay?

tl;dr PrC=free power and base classes lack meaningful features.

[InnaBinder]

In most cases, I think PrCs are designed with the theory of "I want a character that can do [thing] really well, which is off-center from [base class]" or "I want a character who can do [thing] really well, and don't want to worry about [other thing] at all."

With the class structure of 3.X, I think it'd be really hard to emulate the breadth of archetypes most call a strength of the system without prestige classes.

The fact that some archetypes fail in implementation is another matter entirely.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

I'd say they're a cause of it, but not the only cause. Fact is, 3.5's PrC and multiclassing system allows for high amounts of player customization. This is a valid reason to make lots of PrCs, no matter how good or bad the base classes are. Plus it allows you to make in-depth roles without having to make new base classes or ACFs, which is a big plus.

[Libertad]

I think that the glut of PrCs was an attempt at providing as many options as possible to give mechanics to the widest variety of character concepts.

3rd Edition D&D has always felt like a "sandbox mode" to me.  Forgotten Realms has all sorts of monsters, magic, cultures, and themes, from swashbuckling merchant lords in the Moonsea to Steampunk Gnomes on Lantan.  This is also present in Eberron setting: "If it has a place in D&D, it has a place in Eberron!"

There's also no concrete definition of what separates a PrC from an alternate class feature.  Some PrCs require one to be a member of an elite order or to undertake a quest.  Some PrCs just require a certain combination of skills and feats and can be taken without any fancy initiation rituals.  Do Duelists and Archmages all draw their teachings from some learned disciple, or are they just fighters and spellcasters who've discovered "alternative" ways to combat and magic?

I also think it's due to recycling material.  How many Ninja PrCs do we need?  We've got Ninja of the Crescent Moon in Sword and Fist, the Shadow Sun Ninja in Tome of Battle, and a Ninja Core Class in Complete Adventurer.  I think that many classes and prestige classes are technically "revisions" done by WotC, or "better versions" of generic concepts (like Fighters to Warblades).

[Endarire]

I don't see the appeal of 'blank' base classes.  Sure, every Cleric gets Turn/Rebuke Undead, spells, and some proficiencies (which vary if you're Cloistered).  Was PHB Cleric A meant to be that different from PHB Cleric B?  If so, how?

[Sinfire Titan]

Was PHB Cleric A meant to be that different from PHB Cleric B?

Honestly, I think not. From what my friend and his previous DMs tell me, Priests in AD&D had a tendency to die very quickly when doing their job, so WotC may have designed the class to create easily replicated characters, and just churn out Cleric after Cleric. WotC usually sticks to the same formula when designing their Cleric NPCs (only the Gish-ones or the ones with the War domain deviate from the staple weapon: the Mace/Morningstar).

[veekie]

I'd say it definitely relates, PF has a much less attractive PrC policy, and that largely derives from the classes each giving a larger amount of possible variety and specialization(whether that actually means anything remains to be seen), which is slowed when you PrC out. Combined with ACF availability, you are fairly strongly rewarded for staying in your class.

[SneeR]

I would have to say that the base classes often failed to uphold the archetype they represented. Sure, they started off well, but you can tell originality and innovation weren't their strong suits when barbarians started getting [trap sense.[/i] I suppose they were afraid to tread too much new ground in the first classes. They produced a myriad of abilities that were essentially retreads of spells, or literal copypasta of other classes' abilities.

Now, I think that PrCs do just fine in what they are touted to do: specialize PCs into a more niche archetype. I would say that most PrCs do a fine job making wizards and rogues and all the other children grow up to be very different from other little children.

The problem comes in when you make fluff to fill space, and harmless fluff interacts with other fluff to make Pun Pun.

[zugschef]

I don't see the appeal of 'blank' base classes.  Sure, every Cleric gets Turn/Rebuke Undead, spells, and some proficiencies (which vary if you're Cloistered).  Was PHB Cleric A meant to be that different from PHB Cleric B?  If so, how?

Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer and Wizard are all fail from a design standpoint, because they are actually pretty generic in nature. And DnD is a totally non-generic game. i actually don't get what they were thinking when they designed the phb's base classes. i mean just compare monk and sorcerer. monk gets something (just disregard the fact that it's still shitty) on every level and the sorcerer gets spellcasting and a familiar on the very first level and that's it.

[ImperatorK]

Note that all the materials aren't Player-only. DMs also use them and what is of no use to the player might be helpful to the DM. Maybe for a player a PrC is useless, because he can build his concept better with ACFs and optimization, but for a DM it's easier and quicker to just slap a PrC for a concept, instead of optimizing a base class for it.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

DMs allow full casters to PrC out for even more class features? Remember the designers stated (and its technically true) that spells are class features.

[ImperatorK]

Spells is one class feature. Are you seriously so cruel to let a Wizard, Cleric or Sorcerer suffer by having all those dead levels?

On a more serious note. I'd suggest making all the full/almost full-progression casting PrCs to be half-progression, or at least 60-70% progression. Or just don't progress spells on the levels that the PrC gets its best features (including 1st level).

[GreyICE]

Did everyone just forget that clerics have domains and thus are distinguished mechanically?

The problem is domains give all their cool stuff at level 1 so you just bail for a prestige class.

Honestly the PHB classes are all poor, design wise, except the barbarian bard and rogue.  Other than that it's too godly (codzilla, wizard) too bad (monk, pally, fighter, ranger) .

A lot of prcs were supposed to fix this and... Didn't. 



I've heard it argued that if you ban PHB 1 classes the game gets a lot better and it's possible that's true.  Certainly interesting (though I'd retain the rogue)

[Sinfire Titan]

Did everyone just forget that clerics have domains and thus are distinguished mechanically?

That difference is so minor that it may as well not exist. The fact that several domains suck horribly does not help.

I've heard it argued that if you ban PHB 1 classes the game gets a lot better and it's possible that's true.  Certainly interesting (though I'd retain the rogue)

Not really. The Ranger, at the very least, gets solid support and is at least decent, the Bard is amazing, and the Rogue is... marginally more efficient than it all ready was. But then the Factotum can replace the latter.


Banning the Big 6 goes a long way to balancing things out. The Tier 2s can be kept in check much easier.

[Endarire]

THe problem with casting++ classes is that if they don't progress casting, their class features are either not worth it (and you should avoid the class) or so uber as to be better than casting.

The closest I've come to encountering casting classes that lost caster levels and were worth it were gish PrCs.  Even then, losing but a single caster level for the first half of Jade Phoenix Mage made me regret it.

[ImperatorK]

THe problem with casting++ classes is that if they don't progress casting, their class features are either not worth it (and you should avoid the class) or so uber as to be better than casting.

The closest I've come to encountering casting classes that lost caster levels and were worth it were gish PrCs.  Even then, losing but a single caster level for the first half of Jade Phoenix Mage made me regret it.

So what are you saying? That it's better to leave full caster PrCs the way they are and let the full casters get useful (or overpowered) features for nothing?
The thing is: As the PrCs are now, there's no reason to not PrC out of a Wizard, Sorc or Cleric, you loose nothing and gain good stuff. That should be changed. Hell, it should be the mundane PrCs that progress some of the features of the base class and give additional abilities, not replace them.

[SneeR]

THe problem with casting++ classes is that if they don't progress casting, their class features are either not worth it (and you should avoid the class) or so uber as to be better than casting.

The closest I've come to encountering casting classes that lost caster levels and were worth it were gish PrCs.  Even then, losing but a single caster level for the first half of Jade Phoenix Mage made me regret it.

So what are you saying? That it's better to leave full caster PrCs the way they are and let the full casters get useful (or overpowered) features for nothing?
The thing is: As the PrCs are now, there's no reason to not PrC out of a Wizard, Sorc or Cleric, you loose nothing and gain good stuff. That should be changed.

Actually, wizard 5 lets you trade out your bonus feat for a cleric domain power, as well as wizard 10. If you wanted, you could level to wizard 10 for Freedom Domain's freedom of movement 10 rounds per day when needed and improved initiative rfom that one domain without much thought.

[ImperatorK]

It should be the mundane PrCs that progress some of the features of the base class and give additional abilities, not replace them.
I have to think about implementing something like that in my houserules.

[Basket Burner]

DMs allow full casters to PrC out for even more class features? Remember the designers stated (and its technically true) that spells are class features.

Yes. I have also been known to make some of the casting PRCs that lose CLs not lose them to make them worth taking.